Bristol City Council (202101013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101013

Bristol City Council

16 December 2021

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the wet room at the property including that it was leaking, and that the landlord incorrectly advised it had installed a bath.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. This service has not been provided with a dated copy of the tenancy agreement and so it is not known when the tenancy agreement began. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident has brought a number of other complaints to this service regarding this landlord, which will be the subject of separate determination reports in due course.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure.
The council provides online guidance about what repairs it is responsible for. These include floors, ceilings, showers, and the interior of homes. The guidance does not give specific information about the timeframes in which it will respond to or complete a repair.

Summary of events

Prior to July 2020, the resident resided in a different property of the landlord. In or around early 2020, the resident reported to the landlord a number of repair issues including damp and mould. He also made a complaint regarding his application for a transfer through the landlord’s transfer system. This complaint was referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) who are the correct body to investigate such complaints.
In or around July 2020, the landlord offered the resident a new property, which he accepted and moved in on 17 July 2020. Prior to moving in, the landlord’s internal notes state that there was a ‘wet room’ at the property, but that the resident had indicated he wanted a bath installed due to having a young child. It is not disputed, however, that when the resident moved into the property, the bath was not installed and works to reinstate the wet room had been completed. Having moved into the property, the resident reported to the landlord a number of repair issues, including issues with the shower in the wet room. Based on the landlord’s repair records, works were undertaken to renew the shower and flooring in the wet room throughout August and September 2020.
On 6 October 2020, the landlord provided a stage two response which related to the resident’s concerns about the transfer system and the issues with his previous property which are not the focus of this investigation. The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns about the delays and additional works required at the new property, including works to the bathroom, for which it apologised. The response further noted that a bath had now been fitted at the property, as per the resident’s request.
On the same date, the resident disputed that any bath had been installed at the property. Subsequently, on 12 October 2020, the landlord apologised for having misunderstood the situation. It confirmed that when the resident had moved in, the landlord had discussed the option of installing a bath, but due to the amount of time this would have taken, the resident instead requested that the landlord carry out repairs to the existing wet room only. This service has not been provided with communications confirming this instruction from the resident and the landlord’s position is that this was a verbal conversation. The landlord noted that the repairs to the wet room had been completed, and that it would not now be able to install a bath. The landlord reiterated this explanation to the resident’s MP (who the resident had previously reported this and other complaints to) on 23 November 2020, in which it also reiterated that it “apologised unreservedly” for the unrealistic expectation its mistake had caused.
The resident has had ongoing communication with the landlord regarding all of his complaints and, on 12 March 2021, the resident disputed that his conversation with the landlord prior to it carrying out repairs to the wet room meant that he did not want a bath at the property. Due to the landlord’s earlier error in stating there was a bath, the resident requested the landlord now install the bath to avoid there being “any further action taken” by him.
Around this time, he also reported that the flooring in the property was drooping, including in the wet room, allowing water to escape into the hall. Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it attended the property on or around 16 March 2021, following which it confirmed that the landing flooring had been repaired, and that there were no visible issues with the flooring in the wet room.
On 24 March 2021, the resident queried whether there were any further works to be carried out to the wet room and reported that there was water coming through to the kitchen ceiling. He also noted the landlord’s repair contractors were aware of the repairs required and were awaiting the landlord to approve them. Shortly after, the landlord responded via the resident’s MP and advised that it did not consider there to be any further works for the wet room and requested that the resident report any other repair issues directly to its repairs team.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, the resident’s communication with the landlord has been directed to a number of different staff members of the landlord throughout the course of the complaint. On 25 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and noted that the amount of communication from the resident to multiple members of staff was causing it difficulties in responding to the complaint. It subsequently requested that the resident only communicate with its complaints team regarding complaints. It also reiterated its apology for having included incorrect information about the installation of a bath in its earlier communication but confirmed its position that having carried out repair works to the wet room, it would not now be installing a bath. It advised that as the wet room functioned correctly, to install a bath would be considered an improvement which it was not required to do. It concluded this correspondence by stating it was its “final response” on the matter and advised that the resident could refer his complaint to this service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 25 May 2021, the resident again queried if the landlord was carrying out any further works to the wet room floor. The landlord replied on 27 May 2021 and queried if the issue with the wet room that the resident was reporting was the same one as he had initially reported, which it had previously investigated. It requested that he provide photographs of any leaks to assist it. During the communications arranging further works, the landlord again noted its records showed the resident had a bath installed at the property, which the resident subsequently corrected and explained he considered this matter still in dispute.
On 10 June 2021, the landlord advised it had arranged for its contractor to attend the property to carry out further works to the wet room. On 30 June 2021, the landlord’s repair notes state it carried out works to reseal the edges of the wet room to prevent further leaks.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to what it described as a “plethora of concerns,” amongst them the resident’s ongoing concerns about the wet room. It confirmed it had given its final response in its communication of 25 March 2021 and reiterated its apologies. It also advised it would ensure its records were correct to reflect that no bath had been installed. The response did not specifically refer to the ongoing leaks the resident had reported.
In December 2021, as part of this investigation, the resident has advised this service that since the period of the complaint detailed above, he has had further leaks from the wet room which he has reported to the landlord. The resident has also advised that the landlord accepted that its records relating to the property remained inaccurate as during his ongoing communication with the landlord, it had again referred to the property as having had a bath fitted. He has further advised that as part of his ongoing discussions with the landlord, it has indicated it may fit a bath in the property as a gesture of goodwill.

Assessment and findings

Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations relating to repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with what was discussed and with its policies.
It is not disputed that the property to which the resident moved in July 2020 had a wet room. The landlord has stated its position that, upon the resident moving in, it noted the wet room required repair works and discussed with the resident the option of installing a bath at the property. The landlord has advised that based on the amount of time it would take to install the bath compared to the amount of time it would take to repair the wet room, the resident opted to keep the wet room and requested it be repaired. While the resident does not dispute that works were carried out to repair the wet room, he disputes that he instructed or insinuated that he did not want a bath.
This service was not present during this conversation and so cannot make a determination about exactly what was said. As noted above, however, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep detailed notes about any such discussion. Similarly, where an important decision such as this has been made, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to follow up any verbal agreement in writing to ensure both parties have a record of what was agreed. Based on the records provided to this service, the landlord did not accurately record at the time the resident’s instruction not to install a bath. In fact, the landlord’s internal communications show the contrary to be the case, with its operative noting in July 2020 that the resident wanted a bath.
In addition to not making accurate notes or following up with a written communication, it is evident that the landlord’s records about the property and its internal communication were inaccurate on a number of occasions. Firstly, and most prominently, this led the landlord to provide inaccurate information in its stage two response that it had installed a bath. This would have caused confusion to the resident, and frustration at the landlord’s mistake. This is especially concerning given that these comments were made in a stage two response, where a detailed investigation of the resident’s concerns should be expected.
Having had this error pointed out to it by the resident, the landlord appropriately apologised for the misinformation, which it reiterated to the resident’s MP to pass onto the resident.
Based on the evidence available, the tenancy agreement does not state that the resident has access to a bath. The obligation for a landlord is to provide a functioning bathroom, and while there have been instances where the wet room has required repair, it is not disputed that it is capable of being a functioning bathroom. To add any installations to this bathroom would be beyond a repair and would be considered an ‘improvement’. A landlord is not required or obligated to carry out improvements and can do so at its discretion. It was therefore reasonable, in its communication in October 2020, that the landlord advised that having carried out repair works to the wet room, it would not now install a bath.
The landlord also appropriately provided further clarification of its position in its communication dated 25 March 2021, in which it explained that it considered now installing a bath to be an improvement.
The landlord’s repairs guidance online does not give specific timeframes for it to attend to non-urgent repairs. The Ombudsman therefore must consider if the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. Following the resident’s reports in March 2021 that there were leaks coming from flooring in the wet room, it is evident from the landlord’s repair records that it attended on or around 16 March 2021 to investigate a number of repair concerns, including the wet room floor. Based on its internal communications, it concluded that there were no visible issues with the flooring in the wet room, however, it is not evident that this position was shared with the resident at this time. This led the resident to make a further query on 24 March 2021 requesting an update, following which, the landlord appropriately clarified its position that it did not consider there to be any repairs necessary. While it would have been helpful to have given this information prior to the resident needing to request an update, this alone does not constitute service failure and it was also appropriate that it signposted the resident to report any further issues to its repairs team.
Following the resident’s further reports of leaks, it was also reasonable for the landlord to establish if these had occurred since the earlier reports and for it to request photographic evidence to support its investigation. It is evident from its repair records that it subsequently carried out further works in June 2021, which the Ombudsman considers reasonable in the circumstances.
Given, however, that the resident had concerns about the wet room, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have given greater clarification about its position regarding the ongoing reports of leaks in its formal responses. In particular, the formal response in which it noted the resident had “numerous” repair concerns, the landlord merely referred the resident to its response on 25 March 2021, where it only stated it would not be providing a bath. The Ombudsman considers a formal complaint response to be an opportunity for the landlord to outline its actions in detail, which the landlord missed the opportunity to do in this occasion.
In addition, the landlord’s response on 25 March 2021 was referred to as its “final position,” however, given that its content related largely to its request for the resident to direct communication only to its complaints team, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have made it clearer that this was a response under its internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman appreciates, however, that the amount of communication between multiple members of the landlord’s staff and the resident, along with the number of different complaints raised by the resident had caused confusion, and its attempts to reduce this confusion were appropriate.
At the time of its final response in March 2021, the landlord’s apology for its error regarding the installation of a bath at the property along with its explanation about its position on now installing a bath was reasonable, and while it had caused confusion and frustration for the resident, its apology provided reasonable redress in the circumstances. Additionally, its responses regarding the resident’s reports of leaks along with the further works it carried out were also reasonable in the circumstances.
Beyond its final response, however, despite the landlord having identified its records regarding whether there was a bath installed at the property were incorrect, in its communications in or around May 2021, the landlord again noted that the resident had a bath at the property, causing further frustration for the resident and leading him to again correct the landlord on this point. The resident has advised that the landlord has discussed the issues with its records for the property with him and indicated it may offer a bath as a gesture of goodwill. The Ombudsman considers that the use of the landlord’s discretion in this way to resolve the dispute would be commendable. The resident has advised he would welcome such an offer and a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to clarify its position with regards to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the wet room at the property including that it was leaking, and that the landlord incorrectly advised it had installed a bath.

Reasons

The landlord’s records failed to accurately record its discussions with the resident about his position regarding whether works to the existing wet room should be carried out, or whether a bath should be installed. The landlord also evidently had incorrect records which indicated there was a bath at the property, leading it to incorrectly note this in its formal stage two response, a response for which the contents should have been thoroughly investigated and checked.
As a result, this would have caused the resident confusion and distress, however, given that the landlord had met its requirement to provide a bathroom for the property, and its position at that time that to install a bath would be an improvement, the landlord’s subsequent apology and explanation of its position provided reasonable redress in the circumstances.
Additionally, while the landlord failed to use its formal responses to outline the steps it had taken to address the leaks, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property within a reasonable timeframe, and also carried out further works following the resident’s further reports of leaks.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and clarify its position on whether it will use its discretion to install a bath at the property.
The landlord to take steps to improve its record keeping and follow up communication regarding verbal discussions for repair works.